When it came time for the College Football Playoff committee to decide the field for the first ever 12 team playoff, it really worked itself out except for one last debate – SMU vs Alabama. And in the fallout of the Mustangs making it over the Crimson Tide, not many people may have expected Fox college football analyst Joel Klatt to be the harshest critic of the decision.
Klatt took to X on Sunday after the rankings reveal and called the job the committee did “horrendous.” He joked that Oregon should have laid down in the fourth quarter and let Penn State win the Big 10 title because the Nittany Lions received a much easier draw even though they didn’t get a first round bye.
On his podcast, The Joel Klatt Show, the analyst also criticized the committee for their inclusion of SMU over Alabama for that final spot. He even said the CFP committee manipulated the process to get their desired result in rewarding SMU for making their conference championship game.
“I do believe that they manipulated what their process actually is to get SMU in this playoff. They put them in at 11, which is one spot higher than the team that actually beat them, which also doesn’t make any sense whatsoever. But that’s what they gave us. It’s an artificial floor. They’re pulling the levers of power in order to create something that wasn’t going to be created if they did it right,” Klatt said.
“It sounds good in theory but it hurts the playoff overall. And it hurts the integrity of the playoff. I believe that what the committee gave us sounds really good in theory, and you can defend it in theory, and it sounds good on social media, and in a lot of ways they kind of played to the masses. Let them eat cake. Because the sentiment was on SMU’s side… I don’t disagree with that, other than the factor that you have to manipulate it to make it happen,” he added.
First of all, it’s fascinating that Joel Klatt is the one with the strongest criticism for the committee and is here politicking for an SEC team to make the field when usually it’s ESPN that has to answer to accusations of bias towards the conference. That can’t really be said here when Klatt serves largely as the voice of Big Ten football (and the occasional Colorado game). However, his argument is much in line from what you hear from the likes of Nick Saban.
But Klatt’s “manipulation” barb falls short when you realize that the case for Alabama over SMU equally twists whatever stats and arguments you want to cite. It’s not manipulation that Alabama lost to Vanderbilt and Oklahoma as huge favorites against weak opposition. It’s not manipulation that in spite of SEC country freaking out over non-conference scheduling that the Tide played Western Kentucky, South Florida, 5-7 Wisconsin, and FCS Mercer this season, failing to boost their resume.
Klatt also brought up the “best” vs “most deserving” argument which again leans into nothing but hypotheticals. If Alabama truly was the “best” team they had plenty of chances to prove it. And they would be in the playoff had they not failed spectacularly against Vandy and Oklahoma, games in which they were heavy “hypothetical” favorites.
Yes, SMU had an easier schedule. They also won more games, had fewer defeats, looked very impressive all season, and lost their conference championship game on a 56 yard last second field goal. They deserve their spot and even with an expanded 12 team field, someone is always going to be left out. But this is not undefeated Florida State missing out because of an injury to their starting quarterback. This is a 9-3 team with some glaring holes on their resume.
Sometimes the games have to speak for themselves. Not who looks the best getting off the bus, not who has the most NFL talent, and not who would be favored on a neutral field. That’s not manipulation, that’s football.